Jharkhand High Court
Anushka Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 May, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:13540 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.748 of 2024
------
1. Anushka Gupta, Director Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt Ltd., D/o Neelu
Jain Gupta, aged about 23 years, R/o Flat No.S2, B14, Vivek
Vihar, Phase-1, East Delhi, P.O. & P.S.-Vivek Vihar, District-New
Delhi.
2. Ranjiv Ghosh, Director Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt Ltd, S/o Tarun
Kumar Ghosh, aged about 44 years, R/o 18 Ideal Vilas,
Konchpukur, P.O. & P.S.-Newton, District-North 24 Parganas,
West Bengal-700156.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, and
2. Insa Developers through its Partner Joydeb Chatterjee, S/o not
known to the petitioners, having office at Round House, North
Office Para, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2, yet
no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated calls.
3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as
the order taking cognizance dated 20.10.2023 in connection with Complaint
( 2025:JHHC:13540 )
Case No.11944 of 2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi
whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has
found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act
and has directed for issuance of summons inter alia against the petitioners.
4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners being the director of M/s
Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt Ltd. were involved in financial decision making of the
said company and as per their instructions, the co-accused Subir Kumar Sahu
signed the cheque on behalf of the Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.75 lakhs,
drawn in favor of the complainant and the said cheque was dishonored
because of the reason that payment was stopped by the drawer. The
complainant issued legal notice to the petitioners also by speed post
demanding the payment of the cheque amount and the notice was received by
the petitioners on 16.08.2023 but as the petitioners did not pay the cheque
amount, the complainant filed complaint case no.11944 of 2023.
5. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
no.1 was appointed as a director of the said Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. on
14.08.2020 at the age of 19 years and gave the power of attorney to the co-
accused Subir Kumar Sahu. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.1 is not
involved in day-to-day affairs of the company. It is next submitted that the
petitioner no.2 was inducted as a director of Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. on
21.11.2022. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant
Cr.M.P, be allowed.
6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits
that the petitioner no.2 has made false averment in this Cr.M.P., that there is no
( 2025:JHHC:13540 )
averments as to the role of the petitioner no.2 in entire commercial transaction
of sell and purchase of the coal that was done, but the fact that in para-5 of the
complaint, it has been categorically mentioned that the cheque in question
which was dishonored, was issued inter alia as per the instruction of both the
petitioners of this case; which goes to show that they were actively involved in
the financial decision making of the company concerned, including the
decision to pay the admitted liability of the Company in respect of the coal
transaction. It is then submitted that mere giving power of attorney to
somebody, do not absolve the person who executes the power of attorney, of
the criminal acts done by him or her. It is next submitted that it is the admitted
case of the petitioners that the petitioners were the directors of the said
company on the date of issuance of the cheque in question dated 15.04.2023
and there is specific allegation in the complaint that upon the petitioners being
involved in the financial decision making of the company such cheque was
issued, which was dishonored and though notice for demand of the cheque
amount was received by the petitioners, but they have not responded to the
same either by replying to the notice or by paying the cheque amount, so they
are squarely responsible for the acts of the company and have also committed
the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, hence, it is submitted that
at this nascent stage, the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding
against the petitioners ought not be allowed and this Cr.M.P., being without
any merit, be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that it is the admitted case of the petitioners that the petitioners were the
( 2025:JHHC:13540 )
directors of the company concerned Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. on the date of
the issuance of the cheque concerned i.e. on 15.04.2023 and there is also direct
and specific allegation in the complaint that the cheque concerned was issued
for part discharge of the legal liability of the said company inter alia as per the
instructions of both the petitioners; which goes to show that they were actively
involved in the financial decision making of the company concerned. There is
direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that the demand notice was
issued to both the petitioners, calling upon them to pay the cheque amount.
There is direct and specific allegation that they have received the notice which
is sent by the speed post. The undisputed facts remains that they failed to pay
the cheque amount. This court is of the considered view that there is sufficient
material to constitute the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act as
well, hence, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to accede to the prayer
of the petitioners to quash the entire criminal proceeding, keeping in view the
settled principle of law that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be
exercised by the High Court to conduct a mini trial as has been reiterated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh &
Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant
portion of which reads as under:-
"Having gone through the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High
Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not
permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under
Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of
decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in
exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the
stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High
Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case
being considering. (Emphasis supplied)
( 2025:JHHC:13540 )
8. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any merit in this
Cr.M.P., hence, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 05th of May, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
